Homebrew spell: Baeril's Lizardskin Coat

[Empirate]

I think I can appreciate your points better now, Patryn. However, from the experience of a DM in a group that simply seems to love Disguise Self, and worse, Hats of Disguise, the on-the-fly flexibility to become specific things (not just "not me") is often very handy indeed. Frustrated me quite a few times.

So maybe the duration is a bit too long, but would you really take this spell as a 2nd level spell and put it into your spellbook? Worse yet, would you ever memorize it?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I think I can appreciate your points better now, Patryn. However, from the experience of a DM in a group that simply seems to love Disguise Self, and worse, Hats of Disguise, the on-the-fly flexibility to become specific things (not just "not me") is often very handy indeed. Frustrated me quite a few times.

I see this as being, largely, a problem with the hat of disguise. It's waaay underpriced.

So maybe the duration is a bit too long, but would you really take this spell as a 2nd level spell and put it into your spellbook? Worse yet, would you ever memorize it?

No, not as a 2nd-level spell - but then I also rarely memorize Disguise Self unless I know I'm going to need it that day. A scroll of it tends to work just fine for emergencies.

I like the suggestion above that gives it a fixed duration (say, 2 hours) and removes the dismissable tag. Giving up long-term power and additional flexibility seems more in-line with a 1st-level spell.

I'd also say that dropping the duration to 20 or 30 minutes per level is another good solution - gain the benefits of a +1 level increase (Extend Spell) and off-set it by the reduction in flexibility (llizardmen only).

I'm really thinking about this with an eye towards the players involved deciding, "Hey - we've got a spell that makes us look only like a lizardman and it lasts way longer than Disguise Self; why shouldn't we make a Baeril's Fake Pointy Ears spell that only lets us look like elves, and a Baeril's False Beard spell that only lets us look like dwarves, and a Baeril's Generic Humanoid spell that only lets us look like humans?"

In short, (from a "simulating magic" perspective) if you would allow a lizardman-specific spell to have a much-lengthened duration, wouldn't you perforce allow a human-specific spell with the same increased duration? If not, why not?

And, if you do allow them, then does any wizard ever take Disguise Self spell (apart from the odd sorcerer / bard)?

 

[Talonblaze]

@Patryn of Elvenshae

Well as a general rule, unlike most humanoids; lizardfolk only get along with lizardfolk. Even if they were to use such a disguise outside sch an environment they would be treated as monsters or with very harsh eyes on any sort of other humanoid settlement.

Which is where an elf, human, dwarf, halfling or gnome disguise works the best. The extreme flexibility to go just about anywhere without much issue. It's very unlikely a lizardfolk would be able to accomplish the same thing. Most notably in social interactions.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

@Patryn of Elvenshae

Well as a general rule, unlike most humanoids; lizardfolk only get along with lizardfolk.

Except we're dealing with a campaign setting where that isn't the case (c.f. orcs and Eberron, draconians and Dragonlance, etc.).

Which is where an elf, human, dwarf, halfling or gnome disguise works the best.

Right. So, given the "Pick a single race, get 6x the duration" logic, why not create a Baeril's Generic Humanoid spell that only lets you turn into a human?

 

[Talonblaze]

Except we're dealing with a campaign setting where that isn't the case (c.f. orcs and Eberron, draconians and Dragonlance, etc.).

Right. So, given the "Pick a single race, get 6x the duration" logic, why not create a Baeril's Generic Humanoid spell that only lets you turn into a human?

Ah, normally such instances still require Acceptance checks no? (I know Dragonlance does especially, I believe they created such.) Base races get no such penalty. (-4 to all charisma checks, +25% item cost, unfriendly attitude.)

Unlike lizardfolk, humans and other base races also come in alot more variety. Most lizardfolk are quite generic without special markings of some kind.
Theoretically if a DM does house rule such a spell (the human version), I doubt there would be many really caring all that much since a Rogue with Disguise can essentially pull off the same thing or better with the right gear indefinitely.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Ah, normally such instances still require Acceptance checks no?

Not necessarily, I wouldn't think. I mean, if you're in Tarsis, then there's nothing strange about seeing a draconian walking around.

Unlike lizardfolk, humans and other base races also come in alot more variety. Most lizardfolk are quite generic without special markings of some kind.

I'd say that this is mostly due to us being humans and being more familiar with the breadth of human visible quirks.

But, even a short perusal of, say, Argonian characters from the various Elder Scrolls CRPGs will show a pretty broad diversity of "lizardmen."

Basically, when I see the initially proposed spell, it strikes me as one of those cases in which you should look out for "drawbacks that aren't really drawbacks" from a mechanical perspective - like taking flaws designed to never really come up in the campaign (e.g., "Can't Swim" in a desert campaign; "Has a stutter, -4 to Diplomacy checks" when you'll just let the party bard do all the talking, etc.), or things like "Takes a -5 penalty on attacks with sword-type weapons, +2 attack with axes" when you'll just use axes all the time.

 

[Talonblaze]

Not necessarily, I wouldn't think. I mean, if you're in Tarsis, then there's nothing strange about seeing a draconian walking around.

I'd say that this is mostly due to us being humans and being more familiar with the breadth of human visible quirks.

But, even a short perusal of, say, Argonian characters from the various Elder Scrolls CRPGs will show a pretty broad diversity of "lizardmen."

Basically, when I see the initially proposed spell, it strikes me as one of those cases in which you should look out for "drawbacks that aren't really drawbacks" from a mechanical perspective - like taking flaws designed to never really come up in the campaign (e.g., "Can't Swim" in a desert campaign; "Has a stutter, -4 to Diplomacy checks" when you'll just let the party bard do all the talking, etc.), or things like "Takes a -5 penalty on attacks with sword-type weapons, +2 attack with axes" when you'll just use axes all the time.

I do agree with most of your points, though in some cases it would still be a hindrance. Especially the unfriendly nature of creatures in a non acceptance area. (Your allies can't talk you out of that one.)

But isn't that the point of a build? Take your advantages, cover your weaknesses? Even core feats reflect that. (Expertise for example, only benefits a wizard's AC, even though they aren't going to be attacking with melee often. Goes for any defensive character.) Not everything can be done by other party members either. Sometimes you gotta deal with it. (A wizard would be the most likely chance for speaking with draconians. if no one else can speak draconic they become the source to utilize there. and only the wizard, whom will likely be the target of the spell.)

Mind you it could probably be scaled better in terms of duration.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Expertise requires you to take the attack action (or full attack) in melee. It's not terribly useful for a wizard, who will usually be taking the "cast a spell" action or, alternatively, the "Get the hell out of Dodge" action.

 

[Talonblaze]

That's where Heroic Surge comes in handy. ^..^

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

** Minor quibble with the original spell: This should probably also be a Bard 1spell.

The character researching it is an illusionist. Would a bard really be able to pick up a scroll of the spell and cast it themselves? I've always been unclear on that point.